I don't find it particularly constructive to re-hash ad nauseum what's been gone over time and time again. There are plenty of threads here debating
the topic, yet everything here is only opinion. A good start is right here. However, I'm not going tobe baited
by what is your incessant need to argue, especially someone who (look at your posts) cant wait long enough for someone to respond. I said what I
needed to say I'm not going to debate my personal view with you.

originally posted by: alphabetaoneI'm not going to debate my personal view with you.

The problem was you posting your personal view as if it was fact.

The empirical evidence is factual data. My personal views are on how and what analogies I chose to use.

Like I have pointed out.

1. Sea level rate of increase is not accelerating.
2. There has been no rise in temperatures in 18 years unless you cherry pick an el nino year.
3. There has not been any statistically significant increase in Hurricanes or Cylclones.

Michael Bloomberg is pledging to fill a funding gap created by President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, offering up to
$15 million to support the U.N. agency that helps countries implement the agreement.

"Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up — and there isn't anything Washington can do to stop us," said
Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who now serves as the U.N.'s special envoy on cities and climate change.

"Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing [on to] a statement of support that we will submit to the U.N.,"
Bloomberg said, "and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the U.S. made in Paris in 2015."

Oh, soooo, this Paris climate pact was just another shell in the UN money grab. The UN takes in billions of dollars world wide. What do they
really do with it besides stuffing their pockets, creating do nothing jobs for their friends etc? This so called climate pact just got even more
disgusting.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You seem to have missed the part about prevention. It also seems you only cherrypicked the portions you wanted without addressing everything I said.
Your house wasn't the only analogy.

You seem to have missed the part where prevention is not always possible. With most things there is risk/cost/benefit ratios. In some cases it's
best to cut losses and rebuild.

The 'paris accords' (or as I call them 'money sinkhole') are waaaaay to expensive for the supposed benefit.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You seem to have missed the part about prevention. It also seems you only cherrypicked the portions you wanted without addressing everything I said.
Your house wasn't the only analogy.

You seem to have missed the part where prevention is not always possible. With most things there is risk/cost/benefit ratios. In some cases it's
best to cut losses and rebuild.

No, I didn't. In fact I pay close attention to it. And honestly I don't disagree.

The 'paris accords' (or as I call them 'money sinkhole') are waaaaay to expensive for the supposed benefit.

I don't necessarily believe in anthropogenic climate shift either. It certainly doesn't help, but I have always believed we give ourselves way too
much credit if we think we can affect the climate as dramatically as some would have us believe. Yet, there IS evidence (plenty) of the climate
actually shifting...my guess is from below and undersea volcanism. I think the money would be more well spent, instead of carbon limiting schemes, on
yes renewable energy, but personally I don't think that's enough....I think a strategy needs to be put into place for when it DOES happen, instead of
focusing on preventing it.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Teikiatsu
You seem to have missed the part about prevention. It also seems you only cherrypicked the portions you wanted without addressing everything I said.
Your house wasn't the only analogy.

You seem to have missed the part where prevention is not always possible. With most things there is risk/cost/benefit ratios. In some cases it's
best to cut losses and rebuild.

No, I didn't. In fact I pay close attention to it. And honestly I don't disagree.

The 'paris accords' (or as I call them 'money sinkhole') are waaaaay to expensive for the supposed benefit.

I don't necessarily believe in anthropogenic climate shift either. It certainly doesn't help, but I have always believed we give ourselves way too
much credit if we think we can affect the climate as dramatically as some would have us believe. Yet, there IS evidence (plenty) of the climate
actually shifting...my guess is from below and undersea volcanism. I think the money would be more well spent, instead of carbon limiting schemes, on
yes renewable energy, but personally I don't think that's enough....I think a strategy needs to be put into place for when it DOES happen, instead of
focusing on preventing it.

The entire history of mankind has been technological adaptation to whatever that bitch mother nature throws at us. It's what we do. And in my
opinion we can't predict what it will be. Therefore we need to keep our energy and manufacturing sectors running at full steam so we can be ready for
the next time she decides to drop the next surprise on us. We shouldn't be holding anything in reserve, because the universe sure won't.

One real problem with focusing on preventing Global Warming, is that we are dealing with an immensely complex system composed of many layers of
non-linear, interlinked feedbacks. It is essentially an uncontrollable system, but thankfully we got it with working controls in place already.

If we try tinkering with the climate on a large (international) scale, without understanding how the controls work, we run a very real chance of
improperly adjusting the controls and throwing the whole thing into a runaway collapse. I don't think we are anywhere near that at present (I agree
with your assessment of humanity's self-importance illusion), but since when have humans been capable of stopping when it's time to stop?

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early
1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

One real problem with focusing on preventing Global Warming, is that we are dealing with an immensely complex system composed of many layers of
non-linear, interlinked feedbacks. It is essentially an uncontrollable system, but thankfully we got it with working controls in place already.

Agree wholeheartedly. Which is primarily why I had said "I think a strategy needs to be put into place for when it DOES happen, instead of focusing on
preventing it."

Denying that climate shift is man-made has a lot of merit to it, it's arguable in so many ways even scientifically. Denying that the climate itself
is shifting is wholly different and folly. I think understanding the difference for a lot of people and the why's are important for making
informed decisions...not outright dismissing it because it's the party-line thang ta do.

I also don't think that a lot of people realize that the majority of greenhouse gases (overwhelmingly vast majority) is simply water vapor. Water
vapor accounts for somewhere in the vicinity of 96% of greenhouse gases, and that only comes from accelerated warming, whether it be seasonal
anamolies or sustained periods of warming...basically nothing that hasn't been happening for millennia.

Yet, there are also so many other factors that drive warming, the north atlantic oscillation, the pacific decadal oscillation, el nino oscillation, as
I mentioned before undersea and above ground volcanism (though sulfer dioxide will also drive periods of cooling), of course the Sun which makes this
all possible along with its various output during its 11 year cycles. I'm going to stop here as I doubt there's enough posting room to list all the
ecological and geological elements that factor together to make the Earth do what it is she does.

If we try tinkering with the climate on a large (international) scale, without understanding how the controls work, we run a very real chance of
improperly adjusting the controls and throwing the whole thing into a runaway collapse. I don't think we are anywhere near that at present (I agree
with your assessment of humanity's self-importance illusion), but since when have humans been capable of stopping when it's time to stop?

Well, you make an unfortunate and valid point there...we always tend to wait until its too late for almost everything. Not to mention I doubt even if
we doubled our carbon output that it would come close to being the catalyst to the doom. There are other far larger factors driving the current
climate shift and it simply doesn't matter what we do short of nuking the polar icecaps that could truly affect long-term climate.

Agree wholeheartedly. Which is primarily why I had said "I think a strategy needs to be put into place for when it DOES happen, instead of focusing on
preventing it."

Denying that climate shift is man-made has a lot of merit to it, it's arguable in so many ways even scientifically. Denying that the climate itself
is shifting is wholly different and folly. I think understanding the difference for a lot of people and the why's are important for making
informed decisions...not outright dismissing it because it's the party-line thang ta do.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.